Why Are So Many Artists Liberals?

Conservatives complain that Hollywood is “out of the mainstream.” I propose that the qualities which make a successful artist contribute to the artist’s greater awareness of reality and of similarites between people of all backgrounds, in a spiritual sense, which makes them more likely to support liberal causes. Further, because artists spend more time in contemplation and reflection than the average person, their opinions should be valued rather than decried.

For years, conservatives have complained that artists, usually referred to within the American context as “Liberal Hollywood,” too often step outside of their profession and take advantage of their celebrity to spout political opinions. They argue that these people are no different than ordinary Americans, that they should be free to create art and to market that art during appearances on talk shows, but that they should keep their political leanings to themselves.

Indeed, some artists overstep the bounds of appropriate behavior and share their beliefs at inappropriate times. Artists deserve criticism for that. However in arguments of this nature, conservatives often acknowledge that in many cases, artists do a great job of expressing the human condition.

Some art is meant to express nothing, some art is transcendental in nature, and some is a reflection of reality through a prism. There is a different mindset needed to create good, meaningful art, and that is a mindset foreign to people in business or in other lines of work. It involves the channeling of impulses and inspiration, leaving oneself open to influence, and in the case of poetry or lyrics which represent reality, it requires a keen form of observation and of soaking in one’s surroundings like a sponge.

Ultimately, I have to wonder whether the mindset of an artist makes him more likely to espouse liberal causes, particularly social ones. Modern conservatives generally argue for market solutions to social problems, whereas liberals often argue that systemic solutions are really the only way to ensure these problems are corrected. Artists, due to their study of the human condition and recognition that everyone goes through similar experiences, are more likely to view the people of the world as one family. This is a viewpoint which is shared in common with Buddhism and with Universalism, and which leads to arguments against nationalism, against warfare, and for peace.

I also think that artists, particularly musicians or painters, spend more time in contemplation than ordinary Americans working to pay their bills. One of the rewards of fame is more free time (although actors may not agree!) – and this gives them more time to consider the ramifications of actions. Is it possible that because they have more time to observe and to think, and because of their natural tendency to be keenly attuned to the things we all have in common, that an artist is more likely to be a supporter of liberal causes? And even further, that because of these factors, that their opinions on these issues should be valued due to their unusual insight into the human condition?

Yes, I’m a liberal and I’m sick of it being a bad word. I don’t know at what time in history liberals have stood on the wrong side of social issues. We thought that blacks should sit at the front of the bus, that women should be allowed to vote, that maybe McCarthy was a jerk, that Vietnam was wrong and strip-bombing Cambodia was probably stupid. We’ve been on the right side of all these issues.

And here I thought the answer to the question in the title was just that they’re dumbunnies who are out of touch with reality.

RogerMDillon

“they’re dumbunnies who are out of touch with reality.”

How can they be out of touch, dumbunnies when they make millions of dollars selling product that America eats up? They’ve got their finger on the pulse and react to what works. If you have a problem with what Hollywood sells, blame the rest of America.

http://www.ryanclarkholiday.com ryan

You don’t know what time the Democratic Party stood on the wrong side of moral issues? Hmmmmmmmmm…. 1850’s rings a bell for some reason. Oh yes, and then 1945-1989.

http://www.ryanclarkholiday.com ryan

Artists are more liberal because they have free time? Did you read your article before you wrote it?

Hollywood is liberal because its completely isolated from reality.

TA Dodger

Did you read your article before you wrote it?

Did you read that question before you posted it?

RogerMDillon

Obviously, ryan doesn’t watch movies or television, or listen to music. Nice life.

http://lostsupermarket.blogspot.com/ Sean

I propose that the qualities which make a successful artist contribute to the artist’s greater awareness of reality and of similarites between people of all backgrounds, in a spiritual sense, which makes them more likely to support liberal causes. Further, because artists spend more time in contemplation and reflection than the average person, their opinions should be valued rather than decried.

So that’s why Britney Spears sells so many records and has so much important insightful stuff to say.

http://www.elitistpig.com Dave Nalle

Roger, you KNOW the answer to the question you asked in #2.

How can they be out of touch, dumbunnies when they make millions of dollars selling product that America eats up?

And of course, the answer is – because they’re selling dumbunny chow to other dumbunnies.

Dave

nugget

Hollywood = artists????

I missed something.

nugget

I am an artist. I am now a Microsoft engineer. I went to Julliard, have seen all the fartsy movies, and had plenty of theatre/musician friends. I’ve composed numerous works and my family is inundated with art. My sister goes to the New York Art Academy and my parents were both classical pianists.

I’ll say this about artists. We ARE out of touch with reality. My parents were, but luckily they weren’t super ambitious or arrogant.

There is a distinction. People in Hollywood are your less talented, arrogant artists. That is, they are not content being artists. They are exhibitionists.

nugget

Juilliard…i know i know.

http://jeliel3.blogspot.com JELIEL³

Gee someone takes time and effort to make a thoughtfull article and right at comment #1, the namecalling begins. Which only brings up the issue of credibility.

Great article JP and despite what these guys are saying, I think you hit a lot of nails right on the head.

Maybe it is exactly the opposite of what you propose. You say hollywood stars are closer to ‘reality’ I say they are much farther away. The Hubris generated by the constant ass kissing they receive makes them truly believe that they are better and smarter in every way than the ‘average’ American.

As far a social wrongs, liberals are on the wrong side of Affirmative action. Welfare and the great society set off a massive increase in single parent families increasing poverty and crime.

http://www.rodneywelch.blogspot.com/ Rodney Welch

I don’t know about artists in general, but there’s a very obvious and oft-cited reason why Hollywood celebrities go for liberal causes: guilt.

They make assloads of money, too much money, sometimes for doing something, sometimes for doing nothing at all. Blather all you want about art and the “human condition,” art very often has little to do with it. People sometimes get paid for movies they don’t even make.

You write “One of the rewards of fame is more free time (although actors may not agree!) – and this gives them more time to consider the ramifications of actions.”

Oh, please, that’s just nonsense. I always like what Katherine Hepburn said: “These actors who complain in interviews about 12 hour days. You sit there for 11 of them! It’s not as if we’re carrying sacks of feed all day. Let’s face it, we’re prostitutes. I’ve spent my life selling myself, my face, my body, the way I walk and talk. You can look at me but you must pay me for it.”

I doubt there are many self-respecting Hollywood types who can look at themselves in the mirror and honestly “I’ve earned my money” or “I’m worth it,” although I’m sure they try.

They know what you and I know: there’s a deep inequity between the piles of money they make and the money other working Americans have to struggle for. They know they are extremely lucky, too lucky; they know their liquor bills could feed a family for a year.

Giving to liberal causes is a way of assauging that guilt. They can crawl into their silk sheets and think “At least I’ve used my money, time or celebrity to help the less fortunate.” Voting Republican would just remind them of what they are: filthy rich pigs.

http://www.markiscranky.org Mark Saleski

wow! …and i thought i was cynical.

ps. interesting post. too bad the spew-mongers surfaced so early.

Dave Nalle

And let’s not run down the artists unfairly. They aren’t born dumb or ill informed. The truth is that being a successful artist is incredibly hard work in most cases – certainly for most actors. You work incredibly long days and basically disappear from normal society for weeks and months at a time doing something which is highly immersive. It’s not a lifestyle which is compatible with reading 3 newspapers every day or even sitting down with the evening news and a beer.

Dave

http://gratefuldread.net NR Davis

Why are so many artists liberals? Hmm… perhaps because there is a limited market for velvet paitings of Jesus and St. Christopher medals? And anyone with the slightest interest in seeing the Left Behind films and The Passion of the Christ has already done so? (Ah, but wait until the sequels…)
‘
(I kid because I love…)

Dave Nalle

Multiple sequels to Left Behind are already out, featuring the fine acting skills of Kirk Cameron.

Dave

http://www.ryanclarkholiday.com ryan

Good one Roger, make fun of me for not watching tv.

Even if that were true, it doesn’t matter. I do agree that Liberals tend to make better art, I just happen to think it for different reasons.

I think the secular aspect frees them from many of the constraints facing conservatives. I don’t like that, in fact I think its ridiculous, but that’s reality.

Thanks Mark and JELIEL³ for your support, I realized in writing this that it would be quickly pounced upon by the closed-minded, so that was not cause for concern!

I do see one clarification I should have made–that between “Hollywood” and true artistry, at least in my view where “Hollywood” could be defined as pure garbage created simply because it will sell (formula films, as an example) and artistry defined as thoughtful moving pieces created without regard to how many tickets will be sold (low budget art films, as an example). Maybe someone can help me nail that down a little better.

And in that framework, a Britney Spears would fall into “Hollywood” while a “Good Night, Good Luck” would be somewhere in between, but closer to the “Artistry” side. (see it before you judge)

Rodney, your guilt piece is interesting. Maybe it’s oft-cited, but I hadn’t read it before. Still, I’d buy that with regards to a “Hollywood” type–as in uber-successful, rich beyond imagination, non-creative–but not as much about a true artist.

http://lostsupermarket.blogspot.com/ Sean

If there has been any “namecalling” it started with the initial article. The author implied that if you are not liberal, you are detached from reality, spiritually unaware. I know many liberals who are detached from reality and who are spiritually bankrupt. I also know many conservatives who are the same. You have described the human condition, not ideological traits.

You wrote:

Some art is meant to express nothing, some art is transcendental in nature, and some is a reflection of reality through a prism. There is a different mindset needed to create good, meaningful art, and that is a mindset foreign to people in business or in other lines of work. It involves the channeling of impulses and inspiration, leaving oneself open to influence, and in the case of poetry or lyrics which represent reality, it requires a keen form of observation and of soaking in one’s surroundings like a sponge.

I mostly agree with this, but I don’t see how that would not apply to T.S. Eliot, or Jimmy Stewart, or J.R.R. Tolkien (all of whom were deeply conservative philosophically) and I would stack the body of work of any of those men against that of George Clooney. Also, you should not discount the creativity and energy of someone who starts and creates a business. Someone who identifies a need and provides a service or product to fill that need should be applauded.

The main difference in business and art is that in business judgment is immediate and merciless. A buisiness that fails to make money is a failure. In art, making money is not necessarily a sign of failure (Some may say it is a sign of artistic purity), and the critical assessment of a particular work or artist may rise and fall over time.

I was a bit too flippant in my Britney Spears comparison, but my point was that commercial success does not equate to art, or depth, or anything other than moving units, whether they be compact discs, books and/or movie tickets. Lack of Commercial success does not mean lack of artistry, while at the same time if a work of art is commercially successful does not mean it is not art.

http://dianahartman.blogspot.com/ diana hartman

good article…
i’m not sure what the issue is for those who think little of those in hollywood (whether or not one regards them as artists)…
they aren’t leaders unless we the people make them leaders…they’re not spokesmen unless the leaders of the cause for which they speak has made them as much…
those who bemoan actors and actresses are essentially giving them what they (the bemoaners) thing they (actors) deserve the least: attention

no one in hollywood is going to make a difference unless they reach someone through word and action…while that has often meant a redistribution of a very small part of the wealth, it’s rarely meant a change in law or an additional law…

i only had to be homeless with my children once to know how it felt and to have a fair idea of the changes i would make if ever afforded the opportunity…i do what i can with what i’ve got to better the world, but if someday i find myself famous and filthy rich from writing, you can be damn sure to find me at the forefront of that cause, using my celebrity and my money to bring about a better world…

the question is not whether “artists” have the right or are appropriate when stepping outside their fields of expertise and into the realm of social causes; the question is “why do the bemoaners care if someone else is taking on a social cause?”…

i’d much rather hear the beating drums of the give-jobs-to-the-unemployed camp than to hear shots fired by those who think we don’t have enough guns…

the only thing that really separates liberals from conservatives is that conservatives think things should be done this way and no other regardless of the other ways they’re aware of, whereas liberals not only know the other ways but are willing to utilize those means and resources…conservatives don’t seem to have much stomach for anything homeless, starving, or cold, but they sure can’t get enough wounded

http://www.elitistpig.com Dave Nalle

the only thing that really separates liberals from conservatives is that conservatives think things should be done this way and no other regardless of the other ways they’re aware of, whereas liberals not only know the other ways but are willing to utilize those means and resources…

This may be true of actual liberals, but remember that the kinds of ‘liberals’ talked about in this article are not really liberal, but rather dogmatic leftists who are as closed minded as the most bible-thumping conservative is.

conservatives don’t seem to have much stomach for anything homeless, starving, or cold, but they sure can’t get enough wounded

Excep that they are overwhelmingly the ones who give to and volunteer for charity work, raise money for veterans causes and promote legislation to actually help the poor advance themselves.

Dave

Rodney Welch

I’ve never read the novelist Mark Helprin, but a lot of people consider him one of the prime literary artists of the day. He also wrote speeches for Bob Dole and unapologetically hated Clinton. When I tell thast to fans of his books it always ruins their day.

http://www.elitistpig.com Dave Nalle

A lot of the best writers tend to be conservative to libertarian politically. I think they work in a different environment from hollywood ‘artistes’, which has significantly different values and a lot less peer pressure to conform to some left-wing ideal.

Dave

Maurice

My kids were all liberal through college and then became a little more conservative as they entered the job market and started paying taxes. If you think about it kids are naturally liberal because they are consuming based on a handout. Also they resent the authority over them which they perceive to be arbitrary.

Since most actors are high school or college dropouts and their ‘work’ is ethereal they are unable to relate to people that actually produce a product. In fact I would say they are still in the kid stage that doesn’t really understand how everything works.

IMO engineers are the most grounded in real life and society around them. They are very creative and yet practical.

http://www.elitistpig.com Dave Nalle

Good point, Maurine. And it’s certainly true that successful actors live rather like kids, with managers to handle their money, tell them where to go and what to do and make sure they don’t stub their toes.

I think it would interesting to look at who the most prominent conservative Hollywood figures are. I bet they came to acting relatively late in life and had some real world experience first. That’s certainly true of Bruce Willis and Ron Silver.

Dave

Rodney Welch

By no means would I say most esteemed writers conservative or libertarian. Their politics tend to be strictly Manhattan. Helprin is one of the few. Bellow was another. Nabokov was a superconservative who sent LBJ a telegram in the middle of the Vietnam War to tell him to keep up the good work. Outside of that, though, I can’t think of all that many.

Rodney Welch

You can be a flaming liberal and have “real world experience” — in fact, that’s what makes some people liberals in the first place. There are a lot of actors in Hollywood, liberal and conservative, who spent years scraping by on nothing, waiting tables, sleeping on the floors of their friend’ apartments, and just generally doing anything to get by as they waited for their big break.

It’s taken me a very long time to own up to the fact that I’m an – artist. There, I said it, it’s out. My shame for the entire world to see.

That is what most writers are.

But a liberal? Please, don’t stick me with that. I wasn’t a liberal when it was popular to be one foty years ago, and I’m no liberal now.

There are lot of artists whose politics are strictly Manhattan. But I’m a Brooklyn boy. You can go to Elvia Black’s piece on New York real estate to see what I think of Manhattan.

And now that I live in Jerusalem, I find there are a lot of Brooklyn boys just like me who think equally lovely things about Manhattan…

And now it is time to forget about the world and take a 25¼ hour taste of the world to come, time to take joy in the Sabbath.

Shabbat Shalom,
Reuven

Maurice

Rodney,

IMO a persons response to ‘real world experience’ is the determining factor of a liberal or conservative view of the world. Are you a victim of the harsh world? Or are you challenged and excited by the prospect of learning the rules and winning at this game we call capitalism?

BTW I am not offended by Dave referring to me as “Maurine”.

http://www.markiscranky.org Mark Saleski

i suppose that’s true, if you think that capitalism is the be-all & end-all of a person’s life experience.

i don’t.

Maurice

Capitalism is the type of life experience we have here in the US. If I lived in France I would strive to learn the rules of Socialism and be the best…er socialist….

Oh, who am I kidding? If I had to live in France I would kill myself!

http://www.markiscranky.org Mark Saleski

dripping in cliche.

too bad.

Bliffle

Maurice: “BTW I am not offended by Dave referring to me as “Maurine”.”

A curious transposition, no? The ‘n’ and ‘c’ are not particularly close on the keyboard. One wonders what the deeper significance might be…

Bliffle

Maurice: “Oh, who am I kidding? If I had to live in France I would kill myself!”

A mistake! Living in France is delightful. Outside of Paris most Frenchmen are staunchly conservative and support Le Pen (to the disgust of my Parisian wife). Hardworking, independent. Trustworthy: my BW ran into the bank in Laissac to deposit several thou in cash, the computer was down, no receipt, no hand-written receipt. Was she worried? No, “the cashier is Aveyronaisse!”. Oh.

I expect to retire soon to the hinterland of the Rouergue when my labors are finished here, and enjoy the subtle pleasures of French country living. Near that Laissac, on that Aveyron.

zingzing

jesus fucking christ. he’s talking about all artists, not just fucking hollywood. there are a lot more artists out there other than hollywood actors. sure, they are the loudest, and they say some stupid things, but they are not the only artists out there, so why do you only want to talk about them? fuck!

GET OFF OF HOLLYWOOD! just shut [Deleted] up about it. christ. look at the goddamn question: “why are so many artists liberals?”

you conservatives are only want to talk about hollywood and their disconnect from reality. but saying that they went from school to hollywood riches is the most idiotic thing i’ve read all day. that’s why they are liberals? because they never had to work? you know they had to work… no one just makes it in hollywood overnight. yeah, they live in FUCKING LA, which is about as far from reality as you can get. no LA citizen’s opinion should count for shit. i kid.

“hollywood actors don’t reflect the values of the ‘average american’ whine whine whine, which of course, of course, OF COURSE! are my conservative values!” at 51%, conservatives are not the average american, they’re half a fucking average american.

dave–you make me angry. “they aren’t born dumb or ill-informed…” yeah, okay. you don’t think they read? or watch the news? mmhmm. sure they do. that’s how they became liberals–the LIBERAL MEDIA THE LIBERAL MEDIA SHUT THE HELL UP ALREADY.

someone said: “The author implied that if you are not liberal, you are detached from reality, spiritually unaware.” he called this name calling. CONSERVATIVES DO NOT DEFINE “REALITY.” what’s your reality? it’s different from mine. fuck off with trying to define reality based on your [Deleted] values.

dave-“remember that the kinds of ‘liberals’ talked about in this article are not really liberal.” nonono, the article talks about all artists, some of whom are “really liberals,” but all conservatives want to talk about is hollywood. you guys are the ones talking about these “kinds of ‘liberals’.” except for the quote at the end, the article talks about artists and liberals in general.

maurice: “IMO engineers are the most grounded in real life and society around them. They are very creative and yet practical.” so, let’s have the engineers decide our political future. jesus. everyone leads a “real life.” the reality that one person sees is not meant to please YOU. it doesn’t have to conform to YOU. you don’t have to like it. you know who’s grounded in real life? HOMELESS CRACK ADDICTS ARE GROUNDED IN REAL LIFE.

god, i’m angry today. which is funny. because i had a real nice night last night. i’m going to smoke. i can’t believe you people…

http://www.markiscranky.org Mark Saleski

now THAT was funny.

http://www.markiscranky.org Mark Saleski

now we can start up with that “liberals emotional”/”conservatives realistics” hoooey.

ss

Caurine ;] has a point though, or did a generation ago
The reason no one handles my bills for me is because, individually, I’m not worth a financial planner’s time. I’m solidly middle class, so for most of us, handling our own money (unless we can be grouped, like my IRA/insurance through work), making our own travel arrangements, having politics reduced to angry white man aphorisms (Dem and Rep), having friends who thought Final Destination 3 was pretty good, having a mom who listens to Dr. Phil books on tape, dreaming of one day replacing the drudgery of hourly pay with the excitement of owning our own pizza place or excavating company…
For most of this is the default position. It could be alot worse, so we work to stay here. Manhattan, LA, Seatle not long ago, MInneapolis, London during the British invasion, Berlin at the height of the cabaret culture, Paris when painting and theater were the shit…there’s no shortage of cities that try (and occasionally succeed) at planting the idea that their musical/dramatic/artistic subculture is the alternative to provincial boredom. Since these cities will naturally attract people who didn’t like the more conservative ‘burbs, naturally these subcultures are dominated by more liberal types.
Or at least they were. Between the decentralization of creativity with the net, the fact that more people dream of becoming paid writers (etc) than of opening their own succesful businesses, the fact that the main stream, in theory and in public anyway, welcomes anyone not looking to kill total strangers to prove a point…
The art subculture in major cities seems to have fewer raisons d’etre. Can classic, I’m not from Ohio, Hollywwod liberalism survive in this new paradigm?
Christ, I hope so. I am from Ohio, and I hope somebody famous hated going to high school in that backwater shithole as much as I did.

zingzing

woop. sorry.

mike

first of all artists are liberal in the west, not necessarily in other places. secondly,many of the artists, and I am not talking about windbags in hollywood are people who love freedom in all its ways which often espouses atheistic, socially liberal politics. however, I think many artists are actually libertarian, lefty kind, but libertarian nonetheless. The hollywood people are either subversive or stupid or just sell their crap to the public.

http://www.elitistpig.com Dave Nalle

i suppose that’s true, if you think that capitalism is the be-all & end-all of a person’s life experience.

Capitalism isn’t the point. It’s learning to take responsibility for your own actions and to understand that the only good way to succeed is on your own merits and not at the expense of others or by being a burden on society which makes people conservative. Capitalism may be part of that, but it’s not the reason for it.

Zing: the reason we’re talking about hollywood is that the premise of the article doesn’t make any sense if you talk about artists in general, because it’s not true of the hard-working usualy self-employed artists in other fields. They have all sorts of political views and are not as dominantly liberal as hollywood is.

Oh, and sorry about the typo, Mo.

Dave

http://www.markiscranky.org Mark Saleski

well dave, you can make that statment about artists in general. heck, maybe it’s true outside of the northeast.

i know quite a few people who are artists, or are involved in the arts community. all of them are liberal..or certainly not conservative.

http://lostsupermarket.blogspot.com/ Sean

Zing Zing in #37, you wrote:

someone said: “The author implied that if you are not liberal, you are detached from reality, spiritually unaware.” he called this name calling. CONSERVATIVES DO NOT DEFINE “REALITY.” what’s your reality? it’s different from mine. fuck off with trying to define reality based on your [Deleted] values.

I was the one who wrote the line you quoted. I never wrote that conservatives define reality. I don’t think that any ideology defines reality. And since you have no idea what my values are, why would you call them “filthy”?

[Deleted]

Dave Nalle

Mark, I work in the arts. I know a lot of artists. Some are conservative, some are liberal and a few are just nuts. It seems like a pretty similar breakdown to people I know who are not artists, except that maybe there are a few more who are nuts.

Dave

zingzing

hey sean… i wasn’t telling you personally to fuck off. sorry about any misunderstanding.

i was just railing against conservatives, and it had nothing to do with you (rereading, i see you are fairly nuetral). it got a bit out of control. i was just sick of seeing the conservatives here saying that… well, here’s their logic:
a)all hollywood actors are idiots, and detached from reality;
b)all hollywood actors are liberals;
therefore,
c)all liberals are idiots, and detached from reality.

which is not true.

they also think:
a)i am a conservative;
b)51% (or some such number) of american voters vote republican;
therefore,
c)the average american is a conservative.

which is, again, not true.

i didn’t mean to imply that your values were “filthy;” i meant to say that conservative values are filthy, which is (in my calmed down state) a bit of a strong term… liberals value the filthy more than conservatives do… but, conservatives value limitation, which could be described as “filthy.”

and dave, i know plenty of artist-types. the overwhelming majority float towards the liberal end of the pool. it’s always a shock to hear that a particularily creative person holds conservative political views. i don’t know why that is, but it just is.

zingzing

wow, the word “filthy” is now filthy. please, ed, you can delete any absolutely personal attacks (none of mine were truly personal), but “filthy?” what are you thinking? (that’s really a question, not rhetorical).

People are making a distinction between arts and business that I don’t think is merited. Business involves creativity, and arts are a business.

First: The businessman has to know human nature. He has to do something that people want, and make sure they realize they want it. He creates a product, packages it, and markets it. Technology is creating. Sales is seducing. Software doesn’t sell unless it performs properly and has an appealing interface. The auto industry is as much about image as horsepower.

Second: Most artists have worked in tough jobs. The caricature of the waiter with a screenplay isn’t too far off. If an actor is successful, he becomes part of an international multi-billion dollar industry with players like GE and Sony. Read a business page any day of the week, and you’ll find articles about Hollywood’s slump and dvd piracy.

Now, combine business and art. You’ve got the preeminent post-WWII industry, advertising. Madison Avenue is graphic artists and accountants, survey data and Anna Kournikova close-ups. I don’t think the line between artist and businessman has meaning anymore, if it ever did. Ask yourself, are you creative at work, and do you make money (or try to)? If the answers to both questions are “yes”, then you’re normal.

So maybe the question shouldn’t be “why are artists liberal”. It may be more interesting to ask why the wealthiest people in most any industry are liberal. It would at least shake up the “The Graduate”-era paradigms.

Albert

It’s all relative.

I have to ask the question…

Is Hollywood art? Perhaps a director or two, a handful of writers… but a broadsweeping definition certainly does not apply.

http://www.elitistpig.com Dave Nalle

Some of you seem to be confusing traditionalist with conservative, just as you confuse liberal with socialist. A majority of Americans are traditionalists, including majorities in both political parties. Smaller numbers are ‘conservative’ as such, and they can be found in fairly large numbers in both parties.

A traditionalist wants to preserve tradition and respects history. A conservative just opposes all change on principle. There’s a large body of people on the left who are luddites – people who embrace a leftist conservative ideology which finds technological and industrial progress threatening.

Liberalism is, of course, a traditional American value. This is a nation founded on liberalism and in reaction against an intensely conservative regime.

The real opposite of conservative isn’t liberal, but rather progressive, because progressives want to move forward and make changes presumably for the better, but sometimes just for the sake of change.

As for artists, I still think they’re a pretty diverse group, but as people who are generally self-employed they tend towards the freer end of the political spectrum, be it libertarian or traditional liberal or even anarchists. I don’t think that they are overwhelmingly statist/socialists in the democratic party mode, though they may mistakenly identify with that group.

Dave

Steve

Interesting article, and the few posts I have read thereafter.
I made the following post on another thread recently, but it appears pertinent here too.
A number of years ago, I took something called the ‘Four Color Personality Test’.
The four colors referred to are ‘gold’, ‘green’, ‘orange’ and ‘blue’.
To be brief –
‘Gold’ are what you would call traditional values folks, big on law & order, marriage etc. These make up about 50% of the population.
‘Green’ are very analytical, often scientists, often feel ‘outside’ the mainstream. These make up 10% of the population.
‘Blue’ are what you might call ‘touchy-feely’ types, who look for unity in relationships. These also make up about 10% of the population.

However, the group you are talking about are
‘Orange’ folks, who are the creative types who are into the arts generally. These make up 30% of the population. However, they also tend to make up a majority of the prison population, apparently due in part to their dislike of boundaries, which may be helpful in art, but destructive in other parts of life.

Consequently, Dave, I think your last comment is probably quite accurate about their politics.

nugget

ss said,

“The art subculture in major cities seems to have fewer raisons d’etre. Can classic, I’m not from Ohio, Hollywwod liberalism survive in this new paradigm?”

I hope not. Hollywood is escapism, not art. Hollywood is made up (mostly) of people that hated middle America because they didn’t fit in, and, wanted with their myopic social sensibilities, to go to their 20th High school reunion all snooty with their newfound wealth that they will assuredly squander, so that they might impress or even shame their old popular classmates.

Good thought provoking article. My only objection is the phrase “Some art is meant to express nothing”. If it expresses nothing,it is not art.

Steve

Interesting stuff re. liberal vs conservative artists. Not sure what the stats are in Hollywood as far as left vs right go, but one thing is for sure, the left have far more vocal supporters in Hollywood than the right. I have heard some celebrities on the right say they are loathe to express their views, as they feel they are in the minority in Hollywood and so are concerned it might affect their ability to work in Hollywood.

Gordon Hauptfleisch

Are we going to have to change Churchill’s adage?: If you’re not a liberal when you are young you have no heart, and if you’re not a conservative when you are old you have no head or are a Hollywood celebrity, which I guess amounts to the same thing.

nugget

Dyrkness: And who are you to assume that? Art does not have to express anything whatsoever. Are you an art nazi? John Cage was specifically interested in what people conceive as nothing. I find that unless you admit “nothing” is “something”, then you cannot say “nothing” assertively. Perhaps that is what you meant.

Gordon H.: If Churchill were alive I’m sure he’d have a thing or two to say about Hollywood’s political activists. Well put.

Bliffle

Gordon: “…If you’re not a liberal when you are young you have no heart, and if you’re not a conservative when you are old you have no head…”

Can we finally retire this tired cliche? Or do I have to put it in some spam filter?

Not only is it tired and overworked, it is probably not related to any important truth. Would you trust a person who is a young liberal and an old conservative? I wouldn’t. Sounds to me like a person without principles who is blown by the winds of political fashion.

Maurice

Bliffle –
my job has required me to spend more time in France than I wanted. To me it was painful. Glad you are happy there.

Zing –
Crack addicts are not grounded in real life. They are hiding from real life and are victims of their own despair.

Engineers are a better choice for leadership than crack addicts. Odd that that has to be stated…

zingzing

ha. do you see the comedy in that sentence? “Engineers are a better choice for leadership than crack addicts.” that is totally fucking random.

dude. neither are a good choice. “hello, 1984, we had forgotten you.”

http://www.markiscranky.org Mark Saleski

hmmmm. crack addict vs. introverted know-it-all.

hmmm.

Maurice

Now you guys are making me think. How do you view Marion Barry?

http://gratefuldread.net NR Davis

Crackhead. Current or former, I don’t know.

http://musical-guru.blogspot.com Michael J. West

How do I view Marion Barry?

Sadly.

http://www.thebluesmokeband.com Brian Sorrell

One could substitute “academic” for “artist” and “Berkeley” for “Hollywood” and have the same argument.

Now that’s interesting. Ok, not really.

Maurice

Zing-

if you had read my posts the engineer comment wouldn’t appear random.

zingzing

i have read the posts. christ. engineers are not a good choice as politicians. not at all. no better than crackheads. it was random, as in, “who should lead us? cracked egg shells or the man who invented the pooper-scooper?” it’s a totally random, stupid, useless question.

Bliffle

Maurice: “Bliffle –
my job has required me to spend more time in France than I wanted. To me it was painful. Glad you are happy there.”

Oooohh. How sad. Maybe it would help if you could get in touch with your Inner Frenchman!

Dyrkness

art nazi? No not me.John Cage’s art may be “about” nothing,but in so doing,it expresses an attitude or feeling or opinion about that “void”.It therefore does express something even if that “something” is nothing or “the void”. Your sentence “Perhaps that is what you meant.” gives away the fact that you really did understand what I was saying:) no harm done.Nazi?,Bah!.

Maurice

Bliffle – I don’t think I have an inner Frenchman. I meant no offense – I just hate to travel.

Zing – I am typing this slowly because you don’t seem to be getting it. The original post is saying that artists have a valid point of view that should be considered. My own humble opinion is contrary to the original post. I think those grounded in the hard sciences have valid points of view. Certainly better than those that are out of touch with ordinary life such as actors. Related – not random.

zingzing

and i’ll type this slowly as well: i am not saying it is a totally random statement that has no bearing whatsoever on the conversation surrounding said statement. i am saying that it is a silly statement. why should “those grounded in the hard sciences” have a better point of view, or even any point of view, on ordinary life? have you, or your 8-year-old sister, or your mother, or your baseball playing brother ever talked to one of these people? did you understand them? did they understand you? they spend their time looking at schematics, doing lab tests, reading journals, etc. their life’s work revolves around concrete data, not emotion or philosophy or even awareness of their fellow human beings. they are, at the very least, more detached from “ordinary life” than actors, whom, if they are any good, study the damn thing (the way it is lived, not how it works) for material.

engineers would rather jerk off on a design of a woman rather than a real woman. (not really, but my point is made.)

do you get me? i am disagreeing with your statement. what i mean by “random” is not “totally divorced from the topic at hand,” but “what the fuck are you thinking?” i am poo-pooing your idea as foolish.

don’t stick your tongue out at me, kid.

http://jpsgoddamnblog.blogspot.com JP

Maurice, re: your comment –
“The original post is saying that artists have a valid point of view that should be considered. My own humble opinion is contrary to the original post. I think those grounded in the hard sciences have valid points of view. Certainly better than those that are out of touch with ordinary life such as actors. Related – not random.”

Your point is an interesting one–while I was not aiming at a “better” or “worse” judgment in comparing artists to scientists, I’d say that discounting either would be a mistake. But though we differ in opinion, you’re right on top of my point–I think people who are entirely focused upon daily sustenance issues of providing food, working 14 hours a day, are vulnerable to seeing the world in a very capitalistic, income-centric way. I think the artist, due to the skills required to produce quality art, may be more able to detach from himself and approach a state of “enlightenment.”

I think the business mind is too mathematical and too trained to see differences, and inhibits spiritual progress. Essentially it goes to an argument in Eastern spirituality, the idea that withdrawing from daily trials and tribulations–often through meditation–is the way to spiritual truth. George Harrison said it in “The Inner Light.”

I’m an M.S. myself, so of course I value the sciences as well. And I think science also guides one to the same truth, as stated in old books like the Tao of Physics, and recent films like What The Bleep?

Steve

To me, it matters not whether one is an engineer or an artist. The issue is, what are their sources of information? Are those sources reliable? That’s all that really matters. I think both can have valid points of view, it all depends on their sources.

http://alienboy.wordpress.com/ Christopher Rose

Maurice seems to be arguing that artists shouldn’t have a voice. If so, that’s just another kind of discrimination and, as such, totally unacceptable. Everybody should have a say.

Maurice

JP

thanks for your original post and your follow up comment #74. I grok your thinking and agree to a point. Artists by nature think differently and probably empathize more with the ordinary person. Where you lose me is the ‘Hollywood artist’. To me the average actor seems self absorbed. They have no monetary concerns and are as unconnected to society as our current leaders.

Right now we have attorneys for politicians. I would much rather have actors because of their idealism. But I think we would need engineers for their pragmatism.

Zing – yes I’ve met engineers. I have been a semicondutor designer for 24 years. Typically we have small egos and enjoy solving problems.

zingzing

ahh ha. the truth comes out. i don’t begrudge you believing that you, as an engineer, think that engineers would have a grounded view of life. but, your “small ego” is kind of biting you in the ass on this one. circling right around, now isn’t it?

everyone enjoys solving problems. it’s very satisfying. it’s just how one goes about solving said problems that’s really the question here, isn’t it? you’d look at it from a certain angle. whether that would be the most simple way, or the most cost effective, or the quick fix, or the long-term solution, i do not know. the kind of work you do always assumes that something better will, one day, come along. in politics, it’s quite possible that if you don’t do it right the first time, it will be impossible to fix in the future.

you say, “Right now we have attorneys for politicians. I would much rather have actors because of their idealism. But I think we would need engineers for their pragmatism.”

this, of course, is 100% correct, although i think that you are either simplifying things or making them too complicated. i think we need all different types of people: attorneys, artists (not just actors; hollywood has little to do with this, as they represent less than 1% of “artists” and really don’t matter at all), scientists, religious leaders (sans religion), and career politicians. shit, we just need a bunch of intelligent people up there with different qualities and points of view. we need people that can work together, not people who are after personal glory or power and reelection.

politics is about the law. if we ditch all of the attorneys, no one will understand the law. if we have a bunch of pragmatists running the place, we will have real politik within a few years, and we will just get rid of our problems with bombs (…). if we have a bunch of artists running the place, we will have anarchy. if it’s just a bunch of politicians, we will just have politics. if we don’t have any religious leaders in there, then a large portion of the population will feel unrepresented. it takes balance, and that’s not something easy to come by.

gonzo marx

zingzing sez…
*politics is about the law. if we ditch all of the attorneys, no one will understand the law.*

now…here we have a decent conundrum…

since lawyers are writing the “law”, in order to satisfy their self preservation/aggrandizement instinct…they write so that only those in their “club” can read it…

what would be so difficult in writing Law so that ANYONE can read it…?

try it some time….take a simple legalese document, parse it and re-write it in plain english…you will find it just as specific ( as long as attention to detail is kept in mind) and much easier to understand….all without spending $100+ an hour for translation…

then again…notice how back room deals have fucked up the lawmaking process….

rather than having a single Issue in a Bill, so much bullshit is tacked on to satisfy those that did their back room horsetrading that the original Intent can be lost…smothered…cancelled out…or “poison pilled”

this structure is/was created DELIBERATELY by those in office to keep themselves in office, and to further their OWN “agenda” rather than that of their constituents who voted them in and whom they are supposed to Represent…

so much bullshit, so simple to fix once the Problem is brought out into the Light for examination

but i digress…

Excelsior!

http://ruvysroost.blogspot.com Ruvy in Jerusalem

Zingzing, I hate to burst your bubble but politics is not about law, but about power and who has it. Occasionally law gets in the way, but the issue for every politician is power. And strictly speaking, the degree to which a person has to maneuver for power is the dfegreww to which he is a politican – whether he digs graves, clutters up a canvas or goes around to apartments threatening to cut off people’s gas for not paying their bills…

politics is supposed to be about law. no! no! governence is supposed to be about law. if the world was a fair place, congress would make laws, the president/execs would put them into practice and the courts would interpret or punish offenses to those laws.

power should have nothing to do with it. remember, ruvy, that we are just playing around with wishful thinking here. none of this means anything.

if it were impossible to get reelected, politicians would not spend all their time maneuvering for power. of course, if no politician could get reelected, they might not try to do their best by those electing them (not that they always do anyway). we’ve set ourselves up.

i can see gonzo’s point. i suppose that if our source of leadership can change, then his changes can be put into effect just as easily. i don’t see anything like that happening, but it is a good point.

all of this is meaningless. legalese ain’t going nowhere, and true diversity of opinion and knowledge will never enter politics. this country, that country, the world and its politics are all pretty much fucked up. that’s the way it is. there isn’t any way out of it, other than a nice period of total world anarchy, erasing political and economic boundaries, reducing civilization to dog-eat-dog mentality, then building it back up in some hopeful attempt at something better, which may, or may not, work better.

http://ruvysroost.blogspot.com Ruvy in Jerusalem

Okay Zingzing, we’ll call most of your post “stam” – meaningless in Hebrew. One syllable is easier for slow folks like me than uh three (I had to count ‘em on me fingers).

Let’s just look at your last paragraph

“all of this is meaningless. legalese ain’t going nowhere, and true diversity of opinion and knowledge will never enter politics. this country, that country, the world and its politics are all pretty much fucked up. that’s the way it is. there isn’t any way out of it, other than a nice period of total world anarchy, erasing political and economic boundaries, reducing civilization to dog-eat-dog mentality, then building it back up in some hopeful attempt at something better, which may, or may not, work better.”

Society has been dog eat dog for as long as I remember it. Social justice movements of various varieties have attempted to alleviate this feature of society or end it. I won’t argue with you that the world is fucked up – unless you are getting a handsome paycheck to look the other way, it gets kind of obvious…

A messianic redemption is one way out of the mess, which is why it interests me – but we needn’t push the point here.

But what does all this have to do with the false contention that artists are “liberals”?

zingzing

hey ruvy, i’m not the one who steered the conversation this way…

you say my post is meaningless… then you quote me: ‘all of this is meaningless.’ thanks again, cap’n.

and society is not dog eat dog yet. you know it as well as i. things could get much worse, and they probably will have to before they get better.

and no, we do not need a messiah or redemption. those things aren’t coming. and if it did, what would be left to fix? it’s not even an answer. (besides, why turn to god or whatever to fix your problems? do it for yourself. and don’t blame shit on him either. what a cop-out.)

http://www.myspace.com/rogerscarrot Jonathan Ferguson

I don’t think it’s fair to assume that all artists are outspoken political activists. Personally I try to keep my politics and my art separate, save for a few issues which do affect my ability to create (censorship and political correctness to name a couple (I’m against both) ).

That said, artists generally do have a pretty thorough take on humanity. We make it our life’s work to study and explore people and places and emotions and feelings, and then relate them back to you, the listener,viewer,recipient,or user (video games are art). While many of today’s biggest stars certainly have lost touch with reality or feel it’s okay to step outside of their boundaries (for example, Rosie O’ Donnell commenting on how upset she was with Canada for voting in Stephen Harper), I would say nearly the majority of artists live and work to express yourselves to you. It’s actual real work. If you don’t believe me take a look at the statistics correlating artists and depression or artists and suicide throughout history.

Alright. I feel that this must be said. Some good and some bad points were made. Something that should be considered however, is that truly, politicians are focused on the legalities and not having the appropriate experience to fully represent the general public. However, you must all admit that politics IS largely money and it’s distribution and supporting our economy and providing public services which use appropriated tax-payers’ money. For this reason they MUST be knowledgeable about economics and politics and must be aware of the legalities which limit their actions and their choices. The law is written the way it is so that there is less ambiguity. True, some things may be hard to understand, but if you had the vocabulary (which isn’t hard at all to acquire) and the sensibility then you could reason out for yourself the meaning of these legalities. Political members are, in my opinion, supposed to be conservative when handling money and apportionment of tax money, but there should be a general collective to handle any moral and social concern that will be able to represent well what should be done. (can anyone think of our Congress which should be able to handle this well?)

For the matter of Artists which this article was originally about; I must agree that Churchill’s quote had meaning to it and that meaning is about how the world affects our views. It may not be completely true but it’s supposed to make a point, not be a generality. Artists come in all sorts of ideologies and religions. They have all backgrounds and social situations. The common denominator though, is that they are all expressive- intellectually or emotionally. I don’t feel like much of Hollywood should be used to represent artists’ majority, since they really are a minority and the much more egocentric type (for the most part). They are all about appearance, not values since their very art form is about appearance. They can’t not look like the character or feeling they are supposed to express and still make a good living. They must be believeable and convincing. They are salesman, and sell their bodies and voices under a guise.

I do have much more to say but I’m getting bored talking to you blathering buffoons anyway. Maybe I’ll check back and answer a response if I get one.

What we call “liberal” and “conservative” are just warring but vapid tribes, likes sports teams.

Despite the rhetoric, members of both parties overspend and over-regulate, and sell favors to big business. Voters from both parties download porn, and drive SUVs, and eat junk food, and watch the same TV and movies.

The only difference is whom they cheer for, whom they boo. Some cheer Ann Coulter, others cheer Gloria Alred. But most pundits and talking heads are merely putting on a show, which the great unwashed flock to.

Here’s a clue: when someone calls a radio show, and the host cuts them off after the first sentence by twisting their words “So what you’re really saying is (fill in outrageous non sequiter here)”, then you know the host is a circus act rather than someone interest in serious discussion.

Those who support the Iraq War are called “conservative,” despite there being nothing conservative about this war. So those opposed to it are accused of being “liberal.”

I suppose more antiwar people are found in Hollywood than outside of Hollywood, but that’s not the same as saying that there are more liberals in Hollywood. Certainly, most of Hollywood supported Bush’s war when Bush needed support, only finding their antiwar backbone after the war had started and the die was cast.

Liberal media? Was true in the 1970s, ain’t so now, not since 9/12.

Steve

Wars can tend to transcend party boundaries in the US, at least at the outset of one.

Maybe folks should start up a real Conservative party and a real Liberal one according to their original definitions.
However, I heard the Dems. and Reps. are trying to prevent 3rd parties getting any votes in the future. As long as the majority votes for either of the two main parties, not much reason for things to change huh???

Part of the problem is, money talks, and as long as money is more important than principle in America, you’re never gonna pay off your debts, because it seems as long as everyone involved in the political process gets the money they want for the ‘projects’ they want, who cares about the debt??
But even America isn’t a bottomless pit of money.

broman

Regarding Nugget’s comment: “I am an artist. I am now a Microsoft engineer. I went to Julliard, have seen all the fartsy movies, and had plenty of theatre/musician friends. I’ve composed numerous works and my family is inundated with art. My sister goes to the New York Art Academy and my parents were both classical pianists.

I’ll say this about artists. We ARE out of touch with reality. My parents were, but luckily they weren’t super ambitious or arrogant.

There is a distinction. People in Hollywood are your less talented, arrogant artists. That is, they are not content being artists. They are exhibitionists.”

I’m with ya there Bro. I so agree. I am a graphic designer and am highly exposed to the arts. My girlfriend is a performing artist, modern dancer/choreographer, who is pretty darn liberal. I grew up in a right-wing background but don’t consider myself exactly Republican. I do know this about artists and truly concur that we live in this surreal world which takes us from reality creating an abstract mindset in which fosters creativity. We create things that are interesting, thought provoking and unique but often our devices lead us to the impractical non-conformed solutions in life be it personal, professional or political. Because these impulses come from a source that is deep within our souls we provide an insight that often is theatrical (fiction) and not grounded by facts or substance. It’s our own way of conveying the daydreams and emotions rather than actuality.

I have been guilty of living on a cloud, transcendental, and not focusing on the positive things in life. This negative thinking had lead me into depression, bad decision making and lose of faith and belief in our religious system as well as our country’s government. I do realize that we need a government reform but it needs to be done through unity rather than hate and division.

The fact that Hollywood embraces the ACLU and such is creating a dissolution in our country’s social structure from every standpoint. I am all for freedom of speech and feel that people do have a right to their voice but it’s all in the delivery. Nobody from the right is going to listen to a loud mouth movie star and think “hey, he’s so right.” Human nature’s response to such protest is to be on the defense, that is from the right. And please someone tell me where this instant label of artist = liberal come from? That is such nonsense that it makes me want to puke. Artist’s have this preconceived notion, from the day that they are old enough to vote, that “oh, every other artist is a liberal so I will be one too.” I think the wise people in this nation that are concerned about democracy have a perspective from both sides and are calculated about their views rather than being an ignorant follower. The liberals have become almost cult-like. I’m willing to listen but when it comes down to calling our president a murderer that’s just out of line and childish no matter what side you’re on.

I personally feel that anyone who subscribes to the Hollywood pulse is an idiot. You hit it on the head nugget with the fact that they are exhibitionists. It’s almost as if I were to be a Rush follower. I think the man is an entertainer more so than anything. And I’m not a follower.

Sincerely,
An artist that’s not a liberal

KellyO

Te term “artist” is really thrown around alot. Every dork with comic book skin that went face first into a pin cussion calls themselves an artist. Sometimes I laugh out loud when one of these people look at me with a straight face and attempt to explain their “art”. The truth is, all the good/great movies, music etc has already been produced. Why do you think we keep hearing cover versions of popular music again and again. The same holds true for movies. Remake after remake. Newer versions always shittier than the original

Keith C.

The hollywood actors are the biggest hypocrits in the world.Actors who have made a living in roles where they use guns can be found on the NRA anti-gun list(Sean Connery,George Clooney).They don’t think that the regular public should own guns and yet,they do,or have body guards that do(Rosie O Donald).They think that the rich get too many tax breaks but it’s ok for them to find ways around the law (Martha Steward,Wesley Snipes).Why would the average person ever listen to what these morons say.The only reason they became actors is because they couldn’t make it in the private sector.